Abstract:
A comparison of the various judicial systems throughout the world reveals some noteworthy differences. As explained in Part III of this Article, this observation certainly holds true for the law of evidence. For example, civil law jurisdictions allow cases to operate without a jury, where the main fact-finder in a case is the presiding judge. In other words, the judge’s role is to investigate the matter, determine pertinent facts, and render a decision by applying the facts to the relevant codal provisions. Although civillaw judges adjudicate cases, their decision-making authority is restricted by an exhaustive set of laws. Consequently, unlike countries that follow the principle of stare decisis, judges in civil law jurisdictions have less of an impact on sculpting the law than do those who create the framework of the law in which judges operate, such as legislators and drafters of legal commentaries. Hence, this type of system is characterized as “inquisitorial” because the judge obtains all relevant and necessary evidence by “inquiring” as to such information.
